Igrot Kodesh · Letter 8895 — Grief & Loss

(Beginning of Mar Cheshvan* 5725)

You (note 1: This letter is addressed to Rav Hillel Medalye, subsequently rabbi of Antwerp, Belgium, and written on his correspondence, which is dated the eve of 26 Tishrei* 5725. See, regarding him, letter no. 7612.) ask me about the teaching of our Sages* according to which one does not forget a deceased person in one's heart (note 2: Rav Medalye wrote: "I will introduce the following clarification in order to manifest my great affection: Tractate* Moed Katan* 8a teaches: 'One must not deliver a eulogy thirty days before a festival' and it is specified, regarding this: 'Why thirty days? Rav Kahana said in the name of Rav Yehudah, speaking himself in the name of Rav: It happened that a man set money aside to go on pilgrimage. Someone delivering eulogies stood before his door, his wife took this money, gave it to him, and the husband was unable to make the pilgrimage. Shmuel says: it is because one does not forget a deceased person in one's heart for thirty days. And there is a difference between these two explanations in the case where the eulogy is delivered free of charge.' One may ask why Rav does not fear that this eulogy might be delivered during the festival, even when it is free. Moreover, the question raised by the Tosafos also arises. My father, of blessed memory, explains on this topic that Rav maintains here a position he has already adopted elsewhere, in Tractate* Berachos* 58b: 'One does not forget the deceased in one's heart until twelve months have passed.' It matters not, therefore, whether it concerns this festival or the next. On the basis of all this, one could permit this eulogy when it is free and, in this case, it is forbidden only because of the account related by Tractate* Moed Katan*.") for a period of thirty days, according to Tractate* Moed Katan* 8a, and of twelve months according to Tractate* Berachos* 58b. The context proves that Tractate* Moed Katan* speaks here of the forgetting of one's pain, and Tractate* Berachos*, of the forgetting of the person.

This will allow us to understand why such forgetting is a decree (note 3: The Rebbe* underlines the words: "decree," "only," and "obligation."), as Rashi* emphasizes in his commentary on the verse Vayeishev* 37:35, as well as the change in formulation adopted by our Sages*, who add, in Tractate* Berachos*, the term: "only" (note 3), calling into question what had been set forth previously. Indeed, it is natural that this be so.

Nevertheless, I have always been surprised that, in this matter, a special case is not made for father and mother, since the obligation (note 3) of mourning, regarding them, is twelve months, as is the grief that one feels, which must be distinguished from the suffering mentioned in the commentary of Rashi* on Tractate* Sukkah* 25a, since that suffering is not imposed. And one adopts a positive conclusion.

ח'תתצה

[תחלת מר חשון תשכ"ה]

להערתו במרז"ל דאין המת משתכח מן הלב: א) ל' יום (מו"ק ח, א). ב) י"ב חודש (ברכות נח, ב),

הענין עצמו מוכיח דבמו"ק המדובר בשכחת הצער ובברכות - בשכחת האיש.

[ועפ"ז יש להסביר: א) דדוקא בזה צ"ל גזירה שישתכח (רש"י וישב לז, לה). ב) השינוי במרז"ל הנ"ל, דבברכות הל' אלא - שחוזר מדלעיל - מטבעיות הענין].

אלא שמעולם תמהתי על שאין מחלקים בהנ"ל בנוגע לאו"א דחיוב האבלות (צער - ואי"ז שייך ל"להצטער" (רש"י סוכה כה, א ד"ה טרדא) שאינו חייב בו). הוא יב"ח.

ומסיימים בטוב.

ח'תתצה
האגרת היא למו"ה הלל מדלי', ונכתבה על גליון מכתבו מאור לכ"ו תשרי תשכ"ה. אגרות נוספות אליו - לעיל ח"כ ז'תריב, ובהנסמן בהערות שם.

להערתו במרז"ל: במכתבו: לאות חבה יתירה ארשום: במוע"ק (ח, א) שנינו: "לא יעורר אדם וכו' קודם הרגל ל' יום", וגרסינן עלה: "מ"ש ל' יום? - אר"כ אר"י א"ר מעשה וכו'; ושמואל אמר לפי שאין המת משתכח מן הלב ל' יום וכו' וא"ב דקעביד בחנם", עכ"ל.

ולכאו' צ"ע מדוע לא חייש רב דקא אתי למיספדי ברגל אפי' בדקא עביד בחנם? ועוד קושית התוס'.

ואמר אבא מארי זצ"ל דרב לשיטתי' אזיל בברכות (נח, ב): "אין המת משתכח מן הלב אלא לאחר י"ב חדש וכו'". א"כ אין נ"מ אם לרגל זו או אחרת, ולכן בדקעביד בחנם מותר, ואינו אסור רק משום טעמא דמעשה האמור במוע"ק.